But there is another constituency who should view the decision not with delight, but deep trepidation. For West Ham’s competitors at either end of the Premier League, the move to what will be the second-largest stadium in the league is bad news.

By securing a 60,000-seat stadium West Ham will, at a stroke, move to a new competitive level. The financial benefits of a new ground in the iconic surrounds of the Olympic Park, close to the corporate fortunes of Canary Wharf with excellent transport links, should be vast.

Exploited well, the stadium should guarantee West Ham an annual contest for European football. Instead of yo-yoing between the top two divisions they will be ready to outstrip Aston Villa, Newcastle and Everton, position themselves to take on Tottenham and Liverpool on equal terms, and dream of taking on Arsenal.

Were the Davids, Gold and Sullivan, willing to sell, things could get even better. As Manchester City found to their benefit, a publicly-funded stadium with manageable rent makes a club hugely attractive to foreign investors.

The next time an oligarch or sheikh casts their eye England’s football portfolio in search of a trophy investment West Ham, with a long-lease to a new stadium and a heritage ripe for exploitation, will look very attractive. This is why government is keen to ensure the public share in any profits from a quick sale.

West Ham will say with justification that this is not just a good deal for them. Their commitment to the stadium, despite the shambolic process, offers it a viable future, and will give the park the heartbeat it needs.

Without the club the stadium might require subsidy and have a less certain future, but that does not mean it is anything other than a great deal for West Ham.

No wonder Daniel Levy, looking on from White Hart Lane, is nervous. There are many reasons he challenged the decision to select West Ham over Tottenham in the original bid, not least genuine concerns over the fairness of the process. But he is no fool. His stadium is already dwarfed by the Emirates, and now he faces a new rival with an equally imposing stadium just a few miles east.

Money, as Ellis Short and Randy Lerner will testify, does not guarantee you success, but it makes life easier. And for West Ham the stadium should guarantee an increase in income well beyond their grasp at Upton Park.

Even confined to a 35,000-seat capacity stadium, the club are among the 20010-11 league’s higher earners. In their last full season in the Premier League, finishing last, West Ham’s turnover was £81 million. It was the ninth highest in the league and just £7 million short of what City earned in the year before the Abu Dhabi takeover.

More than half of that income, £46 million, came from broadcast revenue, with Upton Park contributing just £18 million and commercial revenue £11 million. West Ham will expect to transform those last two figures once they move.

There may be a challenge initially in filling 60,000 seats, but with an average home gate of 34,449 this season they have a base comparable with Tottenham. Tickets may have to be priced competitively, but the latent appeal of the Premier League will draw in plenty of neutrals to fill the gaps.

Visiting the Olympic Stadium and park will make it a significant attraction for away supporters.

The corporate opportunity is also huge, with the stadium likely to have 5,000 hospitality seats. With the financial hub of Canary Wharf a few stops away on the Jubilee Line, there is a huge market for West Ham to call on.

West Ham may not challenge the £95 million of match-day revenue generated each year by the Emirates, but they will surely get close to the £43 million Spurs yield from White Hart Lane.

All of this may make West Ham feel like a different club in five years. The unique atmosphere of the Boleyn Ground, East End home of England’s World Cup winners, may not survive the move.

But West Ham are not just moving to Stratford, they are heading towards the top six, and that might be compensation enough.